In this connection, it should be noted that many ideas in practical science can be justified using both evolution and creation. For instance, looking at fever in the context of infection, an evolutionist may say that fever must be an adaptive response to infection, and thus not without benefits. A creationist may say that fever is a design feature of the body's response to infection, and thus not without benefits. If you come across an advance in science that is due to evolutionary ideas, and that cannot be explained using the Creation/Fall/Flood teaching of the Bible, let me know. Having said this: Being false, it is not surprising that evolutionary theory has impeded the progress of science:-
- Evolutionists believe that breast milk is a product of mutations and natural selection. It follows that it should be possible to use intelligent design to come up with bottled milk that is better for babies than their mothers' milk. So women were encouraged to give their infants bottled artificial milk rather than breast milk. Later on, scientists realized that breast milk is superior to artificial milk, and that there are other benefits to mother and child associated with breast feeding. This is natural to expect if breast milk is designed by a Creator.
- There are some organs such as the appendix and tonsils whose functions were unknown. Evolutionists were quick to conclude that these are vestigial organs - useless organs that are leftovers of evolution. Many patients were encouraged to have their tonsils removed. Later on, it was found that the tonsils play a crucial role - they help prevent the infection of important organs by getting infected themselves. If the assumption had applied from the beginning in Western medicine that no organ in the human body was likely to be functionless, it again does not take much mental effort to deduce that it would have likely hastened the elucidation of such functions.
- Most evolutionists are indoctrinated with Charles Lyell's uniformitarian hypothesis, that all geologic features must be explained only as due to slow processes acting over a very long time. This has blinded them to recognizing the obvious - that many geologic features are evidently formed due to the action of torrential running water in a short time. The aversion of evolutionists to accepting a flood of gigantic proportions is because this brings them face to face with Noah's Flood mentioned in the Bible. Today, evolutionists reluctantly admit that many geologic features are due to sudden, catastrophic action, which they insist is due to many local floods rather than a single global flood.
- If evolution has taken place on earth, and there are trillions of stars and planets out there in the universe, there is every reason to expect that there may be millions of civilizations out there. Guided by evolutionary thinking, organizations such as NASA have already spent enormous amounts of money looking for a microbe or two on Mars, or some meaningful radio signal from another galaxy. This money could have been put to much better use where it not for the evolutionary obsession with extra-terrestrial life. Incidentally, if NASA finds an informative radio signal, you can bet they will conclude it was created by intelligent life, and not a natural process. Too bad they do not apply the same yardstick to information-containing DNA here on earth!
Noteworthy news item: In his February 1998 article in the journal Australasian Science, evolutionist environmental biologist David Booth claimed that understanding evolution is of great practical relevance. However in the same article he laments that many Australian university biology curricula ‘pay no more than lip service to evolution’. The reason, says Booth, is the ‘move to a more utilitarian science’ which demands ‘more practical benefits from science’. So Booth admits that, in response to pressure to get more practical scientific results, universities are moving away from spending time on evolutionary theorizing.